If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(AZ Family)   It turns out Fox News has a Constitutional right to air suicides on live television   (azfamily.com) divider line 28
    More: Followup, News Corp., constitutional right  
•       •       •

11305 clicks; posted to Main » on 15 Feb 2014 at 11:24 AM (36 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2014-02-15 11:28:30 AM  
8 votes:
I find it interesting that a metal-covered nipple during the superbowl is the worst thing ever, but a live suicide is perfectly okay.
2014-02-15 11:12:43 AM  
5 votes:
"The First Amendment has some limitations," Robbins said.

It certainly does, but I was not aware one of those limitations was that news outlets had to do everything in their power to censor depictions of violence because it's uncomfortable to people. Violence happens, and sometimes it's really shocking. We shouldn't be shielded from seeing the outcome of very real acts of harm. It'd be one thing if a news outlet was playing those moments on a loop, so that it could be seen over and over again as though it were a snuff film, or if it was displaying it for the viewers later in the evening news even though it adds nothing to the story that can't be conveyed without the visuals. But this was a live event, unpredictable things happen. Was it a mistake to not use the time delay? Yea, maybe, depending on one's sensibilities. That does not make it a first amendment issue though.
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2014-02-15 10:45:03 AM  
5 votes:
The lawsuit said a rumor at the school of Romero's sons had generated buzz among students about a televised suicide, so the two older boys went home and viewed the video on YouTube.

I wouldn't even call this a First Amendment case. If you go looking for graphic videos you shouldn't complain about finding them. It's not like looking for two girls and a cup and finding a gross gaping anus instead. They found exactly what they were looking for.
2014-02-15 11:53:36 AM  
3 votes:
I hate more than anything to find myself on the same side of any issue as FOX news, but I don't want sanitized news. Reality is beautiful and ugly in equal measure, and if news is not presenting reality, it's not news, it's propaganda.
2014-02-15 11:50:21 AM  
3 votes:
"The First Amendment has some limitations," Robbins said.

It certainly does, but I was not aware one of those limitations was that news outlets had to do everything in their power to censor depictions of nudity because it's uncomfortable to people. Nudity happens, and sometimes it's really shocking. We shouldn't be shielded from seeing the outcome of very real acts of love. It'd be one thing if a news outlet was playing those moments on a loop, so that it could be seen over and over again as though it were a porn, or if it was displaying it for the viewers later in the evening news even though it adds nothing to the story that can't be conveyed without the visuals. But this was a live event, unpredictable things happen. Was it a mistake to not use the time delay? Yea, maybe, depending on one's sensibilities. That does not make it a first amendment issue though.
2014-02-15 07:21:48 PM  
2 votes:
According to TFA, the main reason for dismissing the suit wasn't necessarily the 1st Amd. grounds, it was that those pushing the lawsuit didn't satisfy the essential elements of claiming intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Intentional infliction of emotional distress, like any intentional tort, requires that the defendant have specific intent to cause severe emotional distress to the plaintiff, in this case by an extreme and outrageous act beyond all notions of common decency. So if the kids' lawyers were alleging INTENTIONAL infliction of emotional distress, they would have had to show that the Fox News affiliate here showed the video of the suicide with either the deliberate intention of causing distress to the kids, or with deliberate disregard for the reasonable certainty such injury could happen--that is, they knew with reasonable certainty the kid would be watching the newscast, but went ahead and showed it anyway. And by the attorney's own evidence, that was not in fact the case: The rumors at the school that there "might" be a televised suicide had caused the older boys to go home and check out You Tube.

So whether or not Fox has any 1st Amd. rights to air people killing themselves on live broadcasts; it's just a fact that there was absolutely no intent to cause emotional harm to this man's children by forcing them to watch the broadcast; and the judge rightly dismissed the case.
2014-02-15 01:52:15 PM  
2 votes:

Kome: . Was it a mistake to not use the time delay? Yea, maybe, depending on one's sensibilities. That does not make it a first amendment issue though.


I remember this story, this article presents 'the facts' quite a bit differently than what I remember - because Fox WAS running the feed on delay, a 3 second delay doesn't mean that it isn't still considered 'live'.  You can hear Shepard Smith counting up the seconds until the video went onto the air as he said 'cut it cut it CUT IT'.  Later he ID's the spot where the industry standard delay went in(everything pauses for a few seconds when the guy gets out of the car).  The dude controlling the feed must have been asleep at his station.

The first amendment part comes in that they're presenting news, and news can be disturbing.  You don't have much free speech if you can't present the news simply because it might be disturbing.  That it was a mistake was almost irrelevant.
2014-02-15 01:34:49 PM  
2 votes:
Get off, get off, get off, get off, get off, GET OFF IT!
2014-02-15 12:21:49 PM  
2 votes:

Kome: It'd be one thing if a news outlet was playing those moments on a loop, so that it could be seen over and over again as though it were a snuff film


www.worldlawdirect.com
2014-02-15 12:16:01 PM  
2 votes:
Meh, FOX News has a lot of issues, but this ain't one.
2014-02-15 04:48:47 PM  
1 votes:
Seems reasonable. Fox is scum, but if everything that sent any viewers into swooning tizzies was somehow not covered by First Amendment you'd have nothing left but 'This week in adorable kittens'. ... okay, maybe I just changed my mind.

But seriously, 'the right to not be offended' is an extremely stupid and dangerous legal argument. Which also applies to a lot of other stupid stuff like Nipplegate.
2014-02-15 04:37:33 PM  
1 votes:

flup: Just to recap:

Indecent: half of a nipple at the SuperBowl.

Acceptable: a live-action actual, literal snuff film.


IT'S FOX NEWS SO IT'S AUTOMATICALLY BAD! WHO CARES ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION? WE HAVE SOME REPUBLITARDS TO PISS OFF!!!!11!!!!

And you obviously have no idea what a snuff film actually is.

A snuff film is a motion picture genre that depicts the actual murder of a person or people, without the aid of special effects, for the express purpose of distribution and entertainment or financial exploitation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snuff_film

This wasn't a murder (suicide is not murder) and the killing wasn't done just for it to get filmed and distributed for entertainment and profit.
2014-02-15 02:33:10 PM  
1 votes:
Just to recap:

Indecent: half of a nipple at the SuperBowl.

Acceptable: a live-action actual, literal snuff film.
2014-02-15 01:35:37 PM  
1 votes:
It's interesting when people die...
2014-02-15 01:17:01 PM  
1 votes:

Sim Tree: I find it interesting that a metal-covered nipple during the superbowl is the worst thing ever, but a live suicide is perfectly okay.


Worst thing ever to whom?
I don't know anyone who actually cared about it.
Only religious prudes and people who think it's the FCC's job to censor for the safety of citizens.
2014-02-15 12:53:03 PM  
1 votes:

flondrix: Kome: It'd be one thing if a news outlet was playing those moments on a loop, so that it could be seen over and over again as though it were a snuff film

[www.worldlawdirect.com image 468x300]


Horrible Story:

I was watching the local NY Fox channel on 9/11, and they had a lot of stuff that I didn't see on CNN/Fox/etc... And at one point, when the tower was crumbling in on itself and the news crew was running away (at the least freaking second) I swear I saw a head roll by on the ground when the camera was shakily directed backwards, at the building and debris.

They also caught quite a few of the jumpers on camera. That was the stuff that really got to me... Those poor bastards who were way up there, and had to make a choice between burning alive or jumping to their death, and then a short while later finding that the decision was pointless anyway when the whole building crumbled around them. I can only imagine the horror they felt.

Hmm... This reminds me... I meant to buy a pocket parachute or Batman-style grappling gun to take with me when I go to tall buildings from now on.
2014-02-15 12:46:34 PM  
1 votes:
Kids, I'm sorry your dad was a piece of shiat who stole a car at gunpoint was such a pussy that he chose to put a bullet in his brain over going to jail, but none of that is Fox News's fault.
2014-02-15 12:25:39 PM  
1 votes:
Oh, they mean this graphic video (link).
2014-02-15 12:04:14 PM  
1 votes:
I'm going to have to argue that if the suspect didn't want his children watching that, then he wouldn't have gotten into a chase and killed himself in the first place.

And WTF sort of guardian allows the children in their care to watch one of their parents attempt to avoid trouble with the law on television? If anybody is to be sued for the children's emotional distress, it should be whoever allowed them to watch it in the first place.
2014-02-15 11:55:56 AM  
1 votes:
Of course if it had been CNN that had aired a suicide on air, Fox News would be screaming all over the place how CNN was causing the fall of America or something.
2014-02-15 11:47:21 AM  
1 votes:
So this will be a nightly show then? Right after O'Reilly?
2014-02-15 11:41:05 AM  
1 votes:

Kome: "The First Amendment has some limitations," Robbins said.

It certainly does, but I was not aware one of those limitations was that news outlets had to do everything in their power to censor depictions of violence because it's uncomfortable to people. Violence happens, and sometimes it's really shocking. We shouldn't be shielded from seeing the outcome of very real acts of harm. It'd be one thing if a news outlet was playing those moments on a loop, so that it could be seen over and over again as though it were a snuff film, or if it was displaying it for the viewers later in the evening news even though it adds nothing to the story that can't be conveyed without the visuals. But this was a live event, unpredictable things happen. Was it a mistake to not use the time delay? Yea, maybe, depending on one's sensibilities. That does not make it a first amendment issue though.


Fox has a Constitutional Right!!! to do things, but that doesn't make it OK. In this case they kept rolling after the local affiliate had put it on delay and after Shep Smith recommended doing the same live numerous times.
2014-02-15 11:38:20 AM  
1 votes:
Of course! It's not as if they're showing a nipple or something. Jeez...
2014-02-15 11:31:19 AM  
1 votes:

One Bad Apple: FirstNationalBastard: [static1.wikia.nocookie.net image 529x410]

[www.famouswhy.ca image 199x254]

/approve

Who is the girl ?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christine_Chubbuck
2014-02-15 11:30:23 AM  
1 votes:

Sim Tree: I find it interesting that a metal-covered nipple during the superbowl is the worst thing ever, but a live suicide is perfectly okay.

2014-02-15 11:30:17 AM  
1 votes:

One Bad Apple: Who is the girl ?


News anchor who also committed suicide while on the air live.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christine_Chubbuck
2014-02-15 11:29:10 AM  
1 votes:

Kome: "The First Amendment has some limitations," Robbins said.

It certainly does, but I was not aware one of those limitations was that news outlets had to do everything in their power to censor depictions of sex because it's uncomfortable to people. Sex happens, and sometimes it's really shocking. We shouldn't be shielded from seeing the outcome of very real acts of kink. It'd be one thing if a news outlet was playing those moments on a loop, so that it could be seen over and over again as though it were a porno, or if it was displaying it for the viewers later in the evening news even though it adds nothing to the story that can't be conveyed without the visuals. But this was a live event, unpredictable things happen. Was it a mistake to not use the time delay? Yea, maybe, depending on one's sensibilities. That does not make it a first amendment issue though.

2014-02-15 11:28:58 AM  
1 votes:

Kome: It certainly does, but I was not aware one of those limitations was that news outlets had to do everything in their power to censor depictions of violence because it's uncomfortable to people.


Especially when the same audience typically spends the next few hours watching much more vivid depictions of violence.
 
Displayed 28 of 28 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report